I'm only responding because I get a mention in the offending post, Boaz.

Otherwise, it is the same old, same old problem. Your logic is appalling, your conclusions impossible, and your ability to ignore that which you cannot refute, unlimited.

>>The only 2 possible approaches to life are:

1/ Make_it_up_as_you_go. (Nihilism, NAMBLA and Neurosis)
2/ Life has meaning due to a Creator. (Love, Joy, Peace)<<

That is the most arrant nonsense, yet you continue to trot it out as if it is irrefutable.

First and foremost, very very few people actually make it up as they go. The vast majority of people have a sense of morality that is entirely independent of any religion. This applies equally to "religious" people too - think pederast priests.

It is also not surprising that many of their "good" values coincide with those of some of the world's major religions. We are, after all, human beings who have to find common ground, simply to coexist in the same world.

Further, a position of non-belief in a deity categorically does not mean that a person automatically believes in the activities of NAMBLA. This is probably the most ridiculous, most offensive, but most often repeated, libel against non-Christians.

And finally, it is the height of arrogance to claim that there are "only 2 possible approaches to life", with the non-Christian way being characterized as evil.

>>You continue to neglect the question mark in my 'carried out by a Muslim'?<<

My intention is to remind you that the line between "I report, you decide" and straightforward propaganda designed to rabble-rouse, is one that you frequently cross.

Usually you have the grace to admit your fault when you have overstepped the mark, but on this occasion you have consistently avoided making any comment, let alone made an apology.

Now you are depending on the question mark to justify your bad behaviour.

"Boaz_David... evil missionary pederast?"

That question mark. Doesn't really excuse, does it?

Pericles... I consider such a suggestion "evil pedarist" simply collateral damage to my own sense of mission. I don't really mind it.

My reluctance to 'apologise' is based on the feeding frenzy it later creates with certain posters who take relish and delight in making a list of apologies simply to destroy my credibility, not to contribute to the debate.

You 'trot out' your 'we all have moral values' claims (Note, I avoid the use of the word 'rubbish') as regularly as I do my own claims.

That claim alone is so easily subjected to some basic reasoning and analysis that it falls apart at the first glance.

We have..what we inherit, and we inherit from our cultural forebears, who in turn were influenced by various forces, such as faith, fear of spirits, education, philosophy whatever.. so, clearly, on the grounds of the simplest of reasoning and logic, those values could turn out to be 'any' thing.

Take for example the shift in public opinion over homosexual behavior.

1/ The homosexual lobby became politicized.
2/ They chose a word which signified 'badness' in those who opposed them. "Homophobia"
3/ They then promoted and marketed this word, and 'outed' various people and sought to shame others, so that the community now speaks of 'homophobia' as though it is a disease which has been around since adam was a pup.

That is a classic example of 'makeitupasugo'.

So, it is easily demonstrable that MIUAUG is a reality for those outside of a faith community.
That 'faithless' life leads to nihilism is also a fundamental step of common logic.
1/ If there are no enduring, absolute truths/values then....
2/ Everything in life gains the meaning we decide to attribute to it.
Conclusion, there is nothing true other than the truth we give it, hence there is nothing to 'believe in' as unchanging truth.

Practically speaking, we don't find Nihilistoids rampaging through our streets, (Unless_the_G8_is_in town) because most people would rather be a part of a community where they have a sense of something to believe in and get on with life.

How about "BOAZ_David... no sense of irony?"

Such a lulzcow.

Bugsy, I totally see the irony you are speaking of, of all my weaknesses, one of them is not blindness :) (more irony?)

You are seeing me as some kind of whacko fundy dill who is desperately clutching at the religious straws Rob mentioned in his opening post.
Then, I foam at the mouth about the reality of faith, and this simply confirms to you that Rob was correct.. yes, I do see the apparent irony.

But the reality of faith in Christ, of Christ Himself, and my own experience of Him, of speaking about Him, in your, and others eternal interests causes me to ignore that obvious potential pitfall.

I know the difference between 'clutching' at straws and dwelling in a well constructed mansion from heaven.

When I see happy clappers jumping around the place, praising, raising hands and waving them around... I always have mixed feelings. I've come in contact with a lot of people from that mould and I don't often detect a great deal of depth.
On the other hand, the dry formalism and liturgical deadness of some more traditional church's and the lack of obvious personal experience of Christ in the 3 members remaining.. also leaves me rather sad.

But then, there is the true Biblical New Testament experience. Aaah...thats different. Paul puts it this way:

IICor4:5
For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

CONCLUSION
Christ Jesus.. as Lord. That is our message. You may consider this 'clutching' at straws, but I prefer to think of it as pointing to a large beam of "Belian" ( a Malaysian hardwood so tough they reckon it will last a billion years)

There are quite a few Scientific professionals- and over a period of time that would refute the assertion that science has replaced religion, quite the contrary- we now have elements of quasi – pseudo science to perpetuate myths – that in turn generate wealth in the material metaphysic of those who would be less accepted as professional but consigned to witchdocktorats- academic fakers and total frauds – who now days are being worshiped as the New Messiahs.

That says more about the psychotropic levels of comprehension of realism and it is self perpetuated to pathological proportions, and also that it is on par with drug induces psychosis of a similar prognosis ; (simply put; Not Good)

Why anyone would see it acceptable to launch into B_D should equally launch their venom at Irfan or some more notable Islamic identities; or would that be really testing the intestinal fortitude and just maybe it will exacerbate the hypocrisy being put on display.
Because they Bite?

To ALL

Not everybody is trying to launch into David per se – it is his arguments that are so galling.

We would just like him to explain the apparent inconsistencies in his assertions – before he changes the subject. For example, he says he is not ‘clutching at straws’ but does his Belief not include the beliefs in many impossible events [miracles]? How does: a belief in something in one part of your paradigm [religious part] which you admit cannot exist in another part of your paradigm [rational-scientific part] amount to anything less than behaviour verging on the psychotic. At least straws can actually exist. David’s writings are peppered with such inconsistencies.

All we want are some consistent explanations for these apparent inconsistencies. It could be quite consistent if, for example, the miracles were taken poetically rather than literally, as one lover of superstition I know does. However since David does seem to believe in the actual existence of such things and has supplied no other explanation which provides a reconciliation of the apparent inconsistencies, despite numerous requests, many of us feel entitled to pursue him until he does us the basic courtesy of answering the questions we have actually asked.

Instead he just ducks and weaves and changes subject. If he gave us some consistent, straight answers, ie consistent with the questions that were put, not consistent with his own teaching, we would all go away but we persist because we know there is a fundamental lack of consistency between his claims and his beliefs and some of us feel that some of the time he should be called to account for those inconsistencies.

Me I’ve just about given up – I’ve realized that it is like trying to argue with Ned Flanders

Dear Boazy, swear on your bible now? Do you believe in the Rapture? ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ Boazy ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ ?